YOU BE THE JUDGE

Frodo, that's the part where they got stuck. No-one wanted to take responsibility for the costs and process of setting up barrier trials, so it's more or less a no go whether a good thing or not. The closest they got was Larry agreeing that it would make sense to get feedback from RA members on the issue.

Thanks, Sabre; I would have thought that the only way for these shows to have more than entertainment value, is if something comes out of it. So let's see if the RA members get polled on the issue.

Missed the Laird/Geroudis start of show but saw the rest.

Charles Faull for president !

Gardner (or is that God-ner ?), Phumelela's marketing and communications man should be fired. He cant market a shag in a knock-shop and his contemptious communication 'skills' are unsavoury to put it mildly.

Larry Wainstein, i thought did ok, in the sense that he had the intestinal fortitude to take on Big Brother, Phumelela, on occasion.

Vee clearly has lots to learn and didnt cover himself in glory.

Neil Andrews top class as always.

Enjoyed the show. Well done for initiating it.

Only caught the back end of the show,so I can't really give an opinion,but if nothing else isn't it about time Gardner actually got a decent haircut considering he is 1 of the faces of P.

Irrespective as to whether Barrier Trials are introduced or not one of the issues which always emerges from a debate of this nature is the matter of betting on first timers ( or horses returning from long layoffs ).

I remain staggered that many members of the racing community regard it as appropriate that owners have some sort of divine right to have 'first bite of the cherry' in the betting market. At best there is an extremely dubious morality at play here. At worst insider trading.

To illustrate my point let's use the share market as a comparative exercise:

Nobody is forced to buy shares. Likewise horses. The purchasing of a thoroughbred can be motivated by any number of reasons from 'love of animals' through to 'potential paddock value'. Share purchases, on the other hand, are inevitably motivated exclusively by the profit incentive- although, as with horses, this is not guaranteed.

However - where share transactions can be proved to have been motivated by virtue of information not in the public domain a case exists for 'insider trading'. A criminal act.

With thoroughbreds the funding customer ( ie the punter ) is expected to sit back and grin bravely whilst being witness ( and sometimes victim ) of a process about which he/she was entirely ignorant!

Yet many so called industry 'leaders' still believe this is a sound practise. And then in the very next breath bemoan the fact that the racecourses are now empty!

As strange as it may seem human beings 'dine out' on negative publicity. So one cynical betting coup is filed away forever whilst the exploits of the last winner are often quickly forgotten. And when that betting story is retold in the months and years ahead how many potential racing fans simply label the sport 'dishonest' and rather spend their recreational rands elsewhere?

Sorry Garrick I totally disagree.

Just because your Horse is 'ready' by no means it's gonna win - that's why it's called gambling!

You forget in that same race there are probably at least 3 or 4 'other' owners that feel exactly the same way about their charges. A few will be glad to pick up a cheque and most will want just to 'come back safe'!

No one knows 100% whether they have the winner of the race - many things can go wrong - as you well know.

Now this whole 'gotta let the public know everything...' when and until the 'public' puts their hands in their 'OWN' pockets, and pays my stable bill is when I'll agree.

All a trainer can say in all honesty is the Horse is well, and will give a good account of himself. Now whether I take some money out of my pocket and 'back' him on the strenght of that is my business. If, after doing so, I forward said 'words' to a few friends and family, again is my business.

Insider trading, please!

Respectfully, Jim.

Jamster all of us got different view points towards this subject.
My viewpoint regarding Barrier Trails for me as an owner and not punter is the following.
My unraced horse will go into a race with all preparations done before hand.
He would have had his first test at home, maybe against something that can run a bit.
The stable will try and find a form horse within the stable to test the unraced horse against. Should he beat the form horse in the stable in a gallop say 800m on grass we have a punt.
In the same race there will be 15 other horses that was also tested at home and say 3 of the horses will pull betting support.
The result comes thru and my horse finished third two lenghts off.
My punt is over my money is lost.
Next time when my horse get to the racecourse it will open ridiculously short, no chance to make a part of my money back that i paid plus lost on him in his previous race.
In first placed my horse was put in a 1000m but what he was actually looking for is a 1400m.
The question should be asked towards yourself as owner. Is my priority for being a racehorse owner the punt.
If the answer is to have a grade 1 winner, then lets prepare him to the best of our ability so that he can perform when he gets to the racecourse first time.
The stables all around is under enough pressure all ready. The extra pressure you put on them the first time he have his run is unnecessary.
Now if we did have Barrier Trails the horse can have his first three runs without any pressure and even enjoy it.
This will bring him on and the right feedback can be given to the trainer and owner from the gallop.
The punters now can get involved and i don't mind if they make a buck out of my horse. The more successful they are the better the stakes will get. Secondly i can also have a punt knowing more of my horse. The falls claims will be something of the past and we can get back to enjoying racing.
The horse in the barrier trails finished first time 9 lenghts from them and the second time 2 lenghts behind. The third time he won his barrier trail unextended.
In his first race if he doesn't run to par as we have seen in his barrier trail questions can be asked and proper investigations can be done.
Now tell me this isn't the right way to get the public and owners involved.
Isn't this the best prep that a horse can have for his first race.
If a trainer then said this race was only to bring the horse on shoot him. The punter didn't know it he went according to form.
The poor bloke did his tom on a horse that was entered in a race because the trainer thought we will use it to bring him on, but fully knew he had no chance to win.

Hell i should get a secretary to type for me.

Good point there Bravo. Anything for the betterment of racing must be commended.

There's a very simple and cheap solution to this.
First timers must run outside of the betting.

We are already doing this with first timers in Pick Six races, so clearly there's no problem with the concept.

It will make for awkward racing early in the season (more unraced than raced horses in a field), but that's short-term and quickly overcome.

Owners will probably find that bookmakes will still give a price on a first-timer (not publicly, mind you, but privately).

Everyone wins.

Well said Bravo. Sad to see owner Jamster doesn't see the bigger picure - the larger % of racing's overall running costs are paid for by punters -stakes, tracks etc etc. More punters = better stakes etc etc this speaks for itself. Most countries other than UK are starting or have started to embrace barrier trials of some form, c'mon South Africa - see the sense in it!!

Does Charles Faul own horses himself?

I very much doubt it.